I do not breathe your politics

Rove update (2)

2006-05-16T03:17:00.000+01:00

*sigh*. Well, according to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, quoted on TalkLeft, the Leopold story is untrue. Now, Luskin will gladly game the media, use sophistry, parse words, etc., and that is is why Rove hired him (even though Luskin is a Democrat). However, he's not going to lie to them. He has been questioned himself by Fitzgerald, as I recall, and I don't think he'd want the extra heat when he could simply have made a simple boilerplate denial. So, it looks like it won't happen, folks. Either that, or Luskin is engaged in some serious brinksmanship to protect Rove while Rove is in the process of seriously expanding the narrative to save his own skin... we can dream, I suppose.

ABC News being monitored by the US government?

2006-05-15T21:02:00.000+01:00

Check out this ABC reporter's blog. If you really want to be terrified at the state of the world... read all the comments too.

Rove update

2006-05-15T20:49:00.000+01:00

Hmm, some confusion here. To date, none of the mainstream US media has repeated Jason Leopold's assertion that Rove has told his bosses he'll be indicted. The New York Sun (Hollinger-owned, I think) is reporting that it's untrue that Rove has been told he has been indicted. Now, could this just possibly be sophistry? Could Rove have been told he will be indicted, not that he has been indicted? According to a blog comment on Think Progress:

I heard Jason Leopold being interviewed on the Pacifica Radio Sunday program Background Briefing - with Ian Masters yesterday. Leopold told Masters that he has a multiple sources that he has agreed to keep private and these sources are aware that if they lie or mislead him they know he'd reveal their identities. It's Leopold's contention that the mainstream news media is too afraid to touch the story until it's a done deal.

So we will see, I guess...

Oh please, let it be true

2006-05-14T00:16:00.000+01:00

According to the (recently fairly accurate) Jason Leopold at TruthOut:

...Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case...

He also says that it is suggested an obstruction of justice charge is likely. It seems to me that the latter, unconfirmed charge is necessary, if only so those die-hard 29% can't prattle on about how there are no 'substantive charges', which was the talking point after Libby was charged. But throw into the mix this little story: Cheney Notes Surface in Fitzgerald Probe, and things get a little more interesting. This is evidence of Cheney's involvement in the affair, with respect to the Libby case. All very intriguing. Please let it be true.

Developments (of the non-photographic kind)

2006-05-12T04:27:00.000+01:00

So, back to politics, for a few little thoughts. First, the mendacious and alarming Dr John Reid is in the place his jackboots fit best - the Home Office. Now we can put a face to the owner of the endlessly stamping Orwellian boot. Second, Jack Straw (who I am now convinced was a dove over Iraq, but who accepted cabinet collective responsibility) seems to have been ousted from a job that he wasn't actually that bad at. If Margaret Beckett does not find a way to step back from Straw's comments about invasion and the nuclear option w.r.t. Iran, I will be most surprised. We're going to war with Iran, folks. Third, the Plamegate grand jury is apparently meeting tomorrow. (OK, today by the time you read this). Could it finally be Karl's turn? It seems to me that if Rove is indicted, Bush is faced with a problem that will definitely come back to him after the midterms. If the democrats win one house, there will be committee proceedings leading to impeachment. If the republicans narrowly hold onto both houses, expect them to get rid of him themselves. People forget that Libby was also assistant to the president. Rove (who has been somewhat demoted recently) is more directly the president's man, and if he is indicted, the cries of "what did the president know and when did he know it?" are going to get pretty noisy for Mr 29%. One way or another, the midterms are going to be a political bloodbath, and I now really feel that there are no positive outcomes for the united states. 29% of the electorate are still completely unconvinced of this man's incompetence and corruption. Why should we expect them to deal rationally with the pendulum swinging back to the democrats? Fourth, and to me no less significant in terms of moral victories, the High Court has done a great deed in slapping down the government's use of orders in council against the Chagos islanders' right to return to Diego Garcia. This is not a good week for High Court popularity in Downing Street. You know, curse their insistence on applying the law. It's so inconvenient.

3 a.m. lyric of the moment

2006-05-03T03:16:00.000+01:00

From 'Getting Over You', as performed by Willie Nelson on the 'Across The Borderline' album. Sums up how I feel about the world at large at the moment:

But there's a vantage point and it takes some time to find Where you can see how all the pieces fit as you watch 'em fall apart

As an aside, the title track is also apt; a brilliant Ry Cooder/John Hiatt/Jim Dickinson song about Mexican immigration, that I vividly remember seeing performed, way too long ago, by the Ry Cooder/John Hiatt/Nick Lowe/Jim Keltner supergroup, Little Village:

And when you reach that broken promised land All your dreams slip through your hand You have learned it's just too late to change your mind Cause you paid the price to come this far Just to wind up where you are And you're still just across the borderline

This album brings to mind a universal truth in music: lend a song to Willie Nelson, and it comes back different. Marvellous stuff - the most eerie of the lot is Willie's cover of "Don't Give Up", sung with Sinead O'Connor (one of the women in Peter Gabriel's past). The combination changes the song into something quite different.

Kew in black and white

2006-04-30T06:09:00.000+01:00

White flowers (1)
Originally uploaded by mieky.

A free roll of Delta 400 and a trip to Kew provided a great opportunity to try plant photography in black and white again. I wandered around, trying to imagine scenes as if photographed by early photographers, or sketched in charcoal.

See the whole set.

Sky and birches

2006-04-21T20:58:00.000+01:00

Sky and birches (7)
Originally uploaded by mieky.

This is from a rare 'concept' shoot. I set out with the specific intent to capture silver birch trees, against a blue sky. I hoped that the sort of shiny, glowing effect you get from a Lomo, coupled with its lovely and somewhat unpredictable vignetting, would give a breezy, chilly, winter sun feel... I think it has.

More here.

Not the same as 'totally untrue'

2006-04-21T02:03:00.000+01:00

There's a great Daily Show video clip over at Crooks And Liars featuring Rumsfeld's onerous repeated use of the phrase "Henny Penny". Jon Stewart identifies the repetition as portentious of an attack on Iran, but that's not what caught my eye. Earlier in the clip is some footage of Bush saying:

"I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation, which is -- it's kind of a -- happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital."

This phrase comes up more and more often from PR people and from people in power, and in this particular situation it seems to be the official wording. This is intended to shut down the debate from a position of authority and assumed knowledge: they say it is wild speculation, and they should know as they have all the facts. However, viewed through the prism of increased potential for impeachment, the president really means: I appreciate the seriousness of the allegations and I know I have to say something to discredit them, but I can't say it's 'totally untrue', or even just plain old 'false', because I smirk when I'm lying.

Little fluffy snow clouds

2006-04-12T02:50:00.000+01:00

Little fluffy snow clouds
Originally uploaded by mieky.

An unexpected April snowfall - five inches of snow in one night in Tunbridge Wells - got me out and about with a camera on monday.

I'm quite pleased with the results. Next time, however, I will remember to carry an extra lens for when the one on the camera steams up.

Funny

2006-04-04T19:47:00.000+01:00

Danielle Crittenden's 'Secret presidential IMs' are always funny, but this one is hysterical.

Kickass43: so like I say 2 andy Kickass43: dude u gotta go in ther & talk 2 tha veep Kickass43: cuz u kno I tried 2 dump dick miself Kickass43: but he wdnt lissen 2 me Kickass43: so andys like: wat do I say Kickass43: so I tell im: Kickass43: administrashun hurtin Kickass43: need nu blood Kickass43: exampls gotta start @tha top Kickass43: yadda yadda Kickass43: so cardster gos in Kickass43: makes tha speech Kickass43: jus like I told im Kickass43: & dick nods Kickass43: sez he axepts dat Kickass43: & dats y he axepts Kickass43: andy's resignashun!! Ladeezman42: ANDY resigns??! Kickass43: si! Kickass43: im like WTF Kickass43: watr tha odds of dat?? Ladeezman42: o man dats 2 funny Ladeezman42: 2. FUNNY. Ladeezman42: im pissin miself

Check out the rest.

Essence of blog

2006-04-02T19:56:00.000+01:00

All blog posts converge on this form: A posts article saying that B wrote in to say C reports that D confirms fact X of minimal newsworthiness. I'm not sure if I've added another link to the chain, or gone meta in another direction. I'm fairly sure I've not added any apostrophe errors, however. (Also note that this is the beginning of what might be the longest internet viral marketing campaign ever - this film, if it is a summer blockbuster, won't come out until July 2007. I predict that within a year, people will say "Simpsons movie in July" in the way that we currently say "film at 11", to express non-astonishment.)

Yeah. What she said.

2006-03-31T03:05:00.000+01:00

From Flickr's homepage earlier: Flower closeups are just like portraits; the process involves the same challenges with a smaller scale. As you can probably guess, I particularly like photographing flowers. It tickles me that someone like O'Keefe would say this though.

First Flickr photos

2006-03-10T03:23:00.000Z

I've really wanted to put together my own gallery for ages - I have the basic design done, I seem to have essentially written the software, but I lack the time to put it all together. In the meantime, I have finally caved in and put together a few photos on a Flickr gallery.

Things related and not

2006-03-02T03:16:00.000Z

If anything describes the magnitude of the hellhole we (the USA and Britain) have dropped the middle east into, this phrase is it:

"Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

If you followed the build-up of war as keenly and angrily as I did, you may remember this phrase cropping up in a few of the more critical analyses of the US march into war. It was allegedly from notes by Secretary of Defence (and potential psychopath) Donald "I stand for eight hours a day" Rumsfeld, on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, urging his staff to find reasons to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time. This, along with another quote concerning Saddam Hussein,

"Hard to get a good case"

was omitted from the coverage of many less brave news outlets, and by the 9/11 Commission. However, a blogger submitted a freedom of information request for a staffer's notes, and got them. So now even right wingers like Andrew Sullivan know that on the afternoon of that day, the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz cabal was already trying to pull unrelated elements into their response to the attack, to go after Iraq. We can all agree, it's not just a hellhole, it's an unjustified hellhole. Progress of a sort, I guess.

From the department of self-fulfilling prophecies

2006-02-21T17:41:00.000Z

OK, so a little funny news, brought to my attention by Tim. (It's a programmer thing. Feel free to ignore this one. I'll be back to talking about politicians you've never heard of shortly.) From vnunet: Linux worm turns on Mambo and PHP

Security experts today warned of a Linux network worm that exploits holes in the Mambo content management system and the PHP XML-RPC library.

Unfortunately when you mix something as flexible as XML-RPC with something as half-arsed as the PHP security model, something like this is bound to happen.

"The main component of the Mare.D worm is written in C and compiled with the GNU C compiler," said F-Secure researcher Gergely Erdelyi.

If it's a PHP/XML-RPC worm, should it not be written in PHP? It just goes to show: if you want to do anything really interesting in PHP you have to write it in C and link it in.

Saying what everyone is thinking

2006-02-16T02:39:00.000Z

The great Alan Dershowitz at the Huffington Post points out the inevitable. Cheney is too clever with the media to delay talking to the police for 14 hours for no good reason. 'Cost-benefit analysis' is exactly it. This story has legs. Personally I still stand by my prediction that it's Joetime.

Best. President. Ever.

2006-01-29T02:58:00.000Z

By way of contrast to current events, this story makes interesting reading. What happens at Davos is basically unlikely to have any impact on the USA at all, but it seems that even in retirement, this President Clinton might. AP stories often seem to end on a throwaway as if to avoid coming to a conclusion that might limit their market, and this is no different:

Klaus Schwab, the forum's founder and organizer, asked Clinton to advise the next U.S. president, noting that this person might either be married to Clinton or listening in the audience -- an apparent reference to Sen. John McCain, seated in the first row along with Microsoft's Bill Gates and other invitees. "In this world full of culturally charged issues I think we should make it clear that Senator McCain and I are not married," Clinton joked as the audience burst into laughter. The comment earned Clinton a slap on the back from the Arizona Republican, who fought a crowd to get to the former president after the event. "Interesting talk," said the beaming possible 2008 presidential contender. "You got us both in trouble!"

With articles like this, it seems to me that you need to rewind back before the whimsical end to see the real conclusion. In this case you see Clinton playing the ex-president, subtly criticising the line given to Bush by his advisers. It's dangerous for them not to talk to Hamas, and this puts the idea out there in a way that makes it very hard for those advisers to hit back. Right/left schism or not, Clinton is still referred to, like all his living predecessors, as "Mr President", which causes those advisers to pull their punches. You'll not see Scott McClellan railing against Clinton from the podium, unless he has absolutely no other way to distract the press corps from Abramoff-related issues.

Whose defence is it anyway?

2006-01-27T10:56:00.000Z

According to The Washington Post:

Attorneys for Vice President Cheney's former top aide urged a court yesterday to force prosecutors to turn over all the information they obtained from reporters about their confidential conversations with Bush administration sources in the course of a two-year CIA leak investigation.

This is a clever tactic. A defence lawyer is surely entitled to all the information needed to construct a defence of a prosecutor's claims. The question here is, whose defence? If all the evidence is handed over to Libby's team of constitutional landsharks, it will not just be of value to Libby. Fitzgerald's investigation, particularly of Rove, is not over. The article continues:

Fitzgerald has asserted that Libby is not entitled to information about all the reporters questioned in the investigation if the government does not expect to use their information or call them as witnesses in Libby's trial, the filings said.

Fitzgerald is wise to the possibility that whoever is on Libby's team now will be on Cheney or Rove's team in the future. OK, probably not Rove, since he likely contributed to sinking his colleague, but you never know. And as Mr Waits cautions us, you can't unring a bell.

Wanted: criminal justice reform

2006-01-05T03:21:00.000Z

Can we have a law like this? pleeeeease? From (ugh, sorry, but theirs is the best this time) The Times:

Signor Cascioli's one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of "abuse of popular credulity" and "impersonation", both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived "after the time of the hypothetical Jesus" and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

Abuse of popular credulity. If such a law were to be found in UK statutes, there would be a groove worn in the streets between Downing Street and the High Court.

Hand it over, Mandy

2005-12-31T02:06:00.000Z

The title of 'comeback king' truly belongs to Ahmed Chalabi. You're comfortable in your EU job, Mr Mandelson, so you don't really need the crown, right? Truly, the new Iraq is the land of opportunity. You can become a minister in government over a country that loves you so little it gives your coalition party less than 1% of the vote. If it really is modelled after western democracy, there's even hope for Veritas! I can hear Kilroy-Silk now, calling his secretary into his office: Can you find out if there's a phone number for the Project For The New American Century?

Phew

2005-12-29T01:18:00.000Z

'nuff said, I think.

On Potter, Aslan, Darwin, and the Fox Sisters

2005-12-22T05:12:00.000Z

A quick-ish, largely random thoughtpile that I cannot seem to shake loose. It has been building up over an evening of festive present wrapping (and best-left-unimagined jittering about to an old tape of Glenn Miller tunes). I figure if I set it down here now, it might let me finally fall asleep. In a nutshell: If one of these evangelical Christians urging us to go see the Narnia film was unaware of C.S. Lewis's christian roots, what would they see in such a film? I suggest they would see a witch (gasp!) and people pledging allegiance to and hero-worshipping a lion who we are given to believe has a soul. A false saviour. Not to mention references to a dangerously habit-forming stimulant called Turkish Delight. Surely that has to be evil somehow. Conversely, if the same individual was informed that J K Rowling was a likeminded evangelical christian, might they not rush to look past the constructed world of wizards and magic to see faith-affirming allegories of heroism, sacrifice, moral leadership, compassion and destiny in the Harry Potter stories? (And no Turkish Delight, either. Though some of the confectionery is a bit suspect). Indeed, they might even celebrate the clever use of popular themes. Vaguely relatedly, this evening I read a comment on Groklaw about the Pennsylvania 'Intelligent Design' case. The commenter's delusional pro-ID case was brought to a conclusion with the Darwin-in-deathbed-conversion canard, stated as fact. The slightly dissonant chord struck: If Darwin's supposed latterday conversion and recanting of evolution is taken as empirical evidence against the theory itself by evangelical Christians, why do these same sorts of people not take to the various confessions of fraud and deception by spiritualist hoaxers like the Fox sisters with the same confirmatory vigour? Darwin made no such confession. The 'witness' to his supposed conversion was not even there at the time, while several members of his family were, and they maintain it never happened. The Fox sisters made their admission in a very public manner. It occurs to me that it comes down to this: the continued fanning of hysteria around the nonsense which is the occult is a useful recruiting tool for a certain brand of christian fundamentalism, whereas Darwinian evolution was a threat to start with. Similarly, the conclusions drawn about Narnia and Potter are ultimately related to the supposed intent of the author. Rowling is not identified as a christian writer, therefore there are to be no possible 'healthy' themes to be found in her books. Because Lewis was a christian, we are supposed to see straight through the medium to the message, while failing to see the mysogyny at all. In short, these people have decided what we are to think, and there can be no discussion. Much like the Pennsylvanian school board, they have to be booted out, somehow. Hmm. I'm still awake, and you're falling asleep. Can you read it again, backwards this time?

On surveillance and the glorious precision of words

2005-12-20T04:18:00.000Z

Yet again, the internet provides me with one of those "I love language" moments. This time, President Bush's phone tapping scandal, and the question of what he is alleged to have done. Some background: Apparently, since 2001, the President has been authorising extra-judicial surveillance of American citizens communicating with overseas entities needing investigation. He's unashamed of the fact that he's done this in secret with little oversight, and is trying to maintain that bizarre state of 'non-recognition' of criticism (Charles Clarke would be proud) over whether he has deliberately avoided using a legal mechanism put in place for him to do what he has done. Essentially, he claims he had to bend the law because there was no quick enough way to do what he wants. In any case he contends that if he puts on his Commander-in-Chief hat, he has unlimited authority. Critics say there is an act (the FISA legislation) which convenes a court (FISC) which normally oversees this process, they will grant retroactive warrants (that is he can start without asking permission), and they have a history of basically granting every request. They also say that it's not true that the commander in chief has unlimited authority, and even if he did, stretch marks are appearing on the whole 'war on terror' concept. Enough background. Here's why this is cool to geeky ol' me. It comes down to the difference between two closely related terms for describing dubious official actions: misfeasance and malfeasance. It is misfeasance if he is illegally pursuing a course of action which could have been pursued legally (through FISC). That is, if all he is saying he needs is speed, then the FISC process really meets that requirement, with retroactive warrants. It is malfeasance if he is doing something which is flat-out illegal. That is, he is acting in full knowledge of the fact that FISC would not be able to grant him permission, which suggests that he is not spying on people who are legitimate targets of espionage. Think: peace campaigners, diplomats, pesky Hollywood types who campaign against the war. The word 'unamerican' springs unbidden to mind. We can, I think, expect plenty of effort to be spent first on this entirely wonky 'unlimited powers' bit, and when that finally falls flat, his supporters will assert that the end justifies the means, and will claim that Congress and in particular the Democrats were briefed anyway. (Which is true. But it turns out they were briefed in such a way that made it impossible for them to act without breaking the law.) And throw this into the mix: this intriguing speculation that what happened was in fact mass e-mail analysis. Into which definitive bucket does that drop? So:

MIS OR MAL? MIS OR MAL? MIS OR MAL? PLACE BETS NOW! BETTING ENDS!

I know which one I think it is.

The Newsnight "Allies On Trial" thing

2005-12-15T04:20:00.000Z

What a peculiar thing. The BBC generally seem to do these mock trials fairly well, but this one was just plain odd. The premise is that in prosecuting the war (wrong or right), the behaviour of the allied forces was questionable, and that behaviour is on trial. The 'defence' of the US position was done by a barrister called John Cooper, who I conclude was finally found at the bottom of a barrel of television lawyers, with scrapemarks on his head. A David Starkey wannabe but without the intellectual rigour (yes, I really did say that), he singularly failed to do anything but pull on heartstrings, or boom about the potential deaths of thousands, in a headmasterly tone. At no point did he even begin to provide any solid support for the neoconservative position that the GWOT truly requires methods falling outside of traditional international norms, even when dealing with an enemy known for not respecting those norms. He totally failed with Moazzam Begg (resorting to prosecutorial tactics when he is acting in defence, in the face of the quiet lucidity of Mr Begg's testimony), and was unconvincing in the face of a barrage of emotes from Shami Chakrabati. Indeed he seemed not to be able to capitalise on the fact that Ms Chakrabati couldn't give him chapter and verse on why rendition is illegal under international law. I'm sure there is a single concise difference he could have pointed to between extradition and rendition, even in the short time available to do so. The real insult was the use of the parent of a victim of the 7th of July bombings - someone he could rely on for gutwrenching sadness. This witness could not, of course, provide anything other than 'impact' testimony. It is inappropriate to ask him for his stance on torture of people who might or might not have been tangentially responsible for the death of his child. The 'prosecution' asked him no questions, effectively short-circuiting this slimy tactic. Now, indeed, to the prosecutor: the brilliant Clive Stafford-Smith, a British-born lawyer, famed for his defence of death row inmates in the USA. My first thought was that this was an odd choice for a prosecutor, but as I watched it occurred to me that this is a man known for very precise interpretation of the law, in genuine life-or-death situations. He essentially prosecutes failings in the legal treatment of his clients. Mr Stafford-Smith should, I think, have concentrated on the ultimate questions about rendition, extraordinary or otherwise, as they are at the heart of this notion of illegal conduct. Any of these would do it:

If we take a British man out of Pakistan, in secret, without an extradition procedure or any kind of notification of relatives or consulates, ship him to Guantanamo Bay and then, in interrogation, threaten to send him to Egypt or Morocco, and this process is not about skirting international or national law, or conventions on torture or ill-treatment, then what is it for?
The US and Britain have effective legal systems. If there is prima facie evidence that the detainee in question committed crimes against either state or its citizens, justifying their detention, what reason is there to render at all?
What was it about 'The American Taliban', John Walker Lindh, which made shipping him off to Egypt less acceptable, when he was most definitely more culpable? (OK so I threw this one in for fun)

It is possible that the Beeb opted to broaden the scope of the trial simply to avoid concentrating on rendition while it is such a political hot potato. Either way, the format did not provide fertile ground for Mr Stafford-Smith's particular approach. The one really interesting witness (for both sides) was the very consistent Colonel Tim Collins. He provided a fair defence of the need for military action in Fallujiah. I don't think anyone doubts that in the context of the war they are (rightly or wrongly) trying to fight, some action on Fallujiah is necessary, and he put this across fairly clearly for the defence. He also provided a (slightly lenient) critique of Abu Ghraib for the prosecution. It is not, I suspect, the contention of many people on either side that everyone involved in torture at Abu Ghraib has been effectively punished. We would have seen many more prosecutions, to account for the many more as yet unreleased torture photos that Donald Rumsfeld is so desperate for us not to see. The television-friendly Colonel also provided an extremely bleak humour moment, in response to a question from Clive Stafford-Smith regarding just such an unprosecuted act of torture (seemingly a copycat of the treatment of Abner Louima at the hands of the NYPD):

'I'm afraid I know nothing about your client or his bottom'

A sentence I am unlikely to forget hearing on television.